Pieper asserts that there is continuity between our universities and Plato’s original academy, which is the basic model for our universities. He holds that the intrinsic characteristic of Plato’s school was the philosophical way of looking at the world, and that the defining characteristic of an academic institution is that it is based on philosophy. “A subject of study that has no philosophical orientation is not academic”.
As noted in the introduction by J.V Schall, SJ, Pieper does not mean philosophy departments or courses (although these are important) but a philosophical or “theoretical” way of looking at things with the aim of arriving at the truth in order to practice (or act on) it. He contrasts this with “practical” or “useful” knowledge for its own sake.
Here then is an early answer (recall this was written in 1950) to the frequently identified problem of education as a stepping stone to a career: “where practicality is the decisive factor – the inner core of the academy [is] surrendered” (p.10). Pieper does not deny that universities are “institutions of professional training”, but that they are more than that (p. 11), and furthermore that the academic (philosophical) training should not be “side by side” with professional training (or that “general courses” should just be added on professional training, p. 16),but that professional training is itself academic (p. 13). In encompassing “academic” and “professional” training, Pieper suggests:
“Of course the professional excellence of the doctor, the scientist and the lawyer is a highly desirable fruit of academic study. But could it not be that such excellence, once it rises above … purely technical learning, is linked to and conditioned by selfless, purely theoretical and receptive absorption into being” – in the same way that research needs theory to avoid becoming sterile. (p. 13-14).
The “philosophical” way of studying a discipline goes beyond practical knowledge into a deeper realm of seeing things in their “total reality” – as “being” (p. 14). The freedom from purely “utilitarian goals” is true academic freedom, which is essentially philosophical freedom (p. 15).
Pieper’s description of “moving out of our enclosed narrow environment” into this “open universe” seems analogous to Lonergan’s “expanding horizons” and “conversion”; his description of the experience causing “astonishment” recalls Msgr. Liddy’s “Startling Strangeness”.
Pieper states that the problem of specialization becomes “acceptable” by “having all disciplines – even the individual ones … treated in an academic, and therefore philosophical way” (p. 16)
Pieper decries the “sophist generation of the academy” – simply piling up isolated knowledge and pursuing purely useful ends – as detrimental to academic freedom and an invitation to totalitarianism and producing mere “workers”. He also notes that sophistry will never accept “sacred tradition, based on a message about the world and existence as a whole, from a higher than human source” (p. 28). (Pieper develops the theme of spirituality in the second essay).
Pieper asks whether the academy should be separate from “the many” (average people living an everyday life, p. 31). He suggests that although universities should be open to all and not “socially separate”, and that they cannot “ignore the world in which ordinary people work and live”, separation is necessary to achieve “the capacity for reflection, quietness, contemplation and leisure” and see the “empty attractions” of entertainment as “forms of killing time (p.34-5).
*Note: I earlier wrote a piece on “why we don’t ask big questions” and one of my answers was “entertainment”!
The second essay in this book is “Openness to the totality of things”.
Pieper speaks of the “experiences, insights and convictions” incorporated into Western Universities (p. 56-57). An important part of this is a devotion to the whole; the unified totality of things, “universality”. He notes that “a truly educated person is one who knows his relationship to the world as a whole” (p.60).
He agrees that universities are primarily places for the sciences and scientific research and acknowledges the contributions of scientific activity to “objectivity, rationality and integrity” (p. 65), but as argued in the first essay, a university should go beyond the individual disciplines to focus on “the totality” – it should be “a sanctuary” for the discussion of ideas and concepts from “every conceivable aspect” (p. 66). Philosophy (as a way of thought) is central to this. In contrast to science (this is questionable?!) philosophical questions are endless and sometimes seem (or are) unanswerable, to ignore them is to limit freedom. Also science seeks “progress” in knowledge, but philosophy seeks “progress” in understanding (p. 68). Philosophical contemplation has “no practical aspect”; it is “free, it cannot be taken into service” (p. 69)
Philosophy needs to be attentive to scientific discovery, but has the responsibility of looking at “the totality”, an openness to information “no matter what its origin” (p.73). [Pieper does not mention ‘sacred tradition’ or ‘revealed truth’ here but it is inferred when he stresses the need for cooperation between science and theology]
“Only a theology that does not avoid the inevitable and the uncomfortable confrontation with scientific research is able to understand its own theological task” (p.74)
Philosophy and theology are not [merely] “subjects” within a university, both have to do with “the whole of the reality” and should be part of every discipline. Without their unifying aspects there can be no true “cooperation between the disciplines” (p.75).
Pieper offers what he calls his only “concrete organizational suggestion”, and it is a critical one: “there should be room within the structure of the university itself for academic debate which spreads across the disciplines and faculty” – on what we might call the Big Questions such as “what is Truth? (p. 77). He quotes Thomas Aquinas on the “disputatio” being the spirit of the university (p. 77). He is not calling for a literal return to this scholastic tradition, but an openness to discussion of the diversity of knowledge and “many sided dialog” contributing to the totality of knowledge.
He notes that “over and above his scientific qualifications [an academic] must be in a position to appreciate the relevance of his specific findings to the broader discussion which concerns the totality, and introduce them … into that philosophical conversation” (p. 79). He sees that this will meet resistance in modern universities, not from students but the faculty. He relates the apocryphal story of a student who asked a professor for “personal convictions” on a seminar question, and was rebuffed with the answer that this “was not a matter for discussion” as it was part of his “personal faith” (p.80).
Pieper ends with a (perennial) question: how do universities attract [faculty] who are both important scholars and true university teachers (in the sense of openness to the totality of truth).
Note: this book was comprehensively covered in a faculty retreat led by GEM fellow Dr. Anthony Haynor on February 7, 2018, see https://www.shu.edu/news/heart-of-the-university-faculty-retreat-series-2017-20.cfm
Questions
How does Pieper’s view of integrating philosophical thought into all disciplines differ from the current concept of “interdisciplinarity”? Can the two be reconciled?
His views on integrating philosophical thinking with professional training is extremely relevant today, especially for our “professional programs”. But how can this be done effectively? How are we doing it?
Two of Pieper’s distinctions between philosophy and science are that science is “practical” and that it does not ask “unanswerable questions” (presumably such as “what is the meaning of life?”). Is this true, or is this a narrow conception of science, maybe even a false dichotomy?
Pieper’s concluding question: how do universities attract [faculty] who are both important scholars and true university teachers? It seems we are increasingly emphasizing and rewarding scholarship rather than teaching (especially the “unified” form of teaching). Is this the wrong direction to take?